World Ranking

[ifk101]

I'm not sure about this, but I have a feeling Sweden play a number of friendlies "out of season" i.e. featuring their domestic (Summer) players, where the teams selected are weaker (hence less successful?) than the teams they pick for competitive matches, where they include their stars who play outside of Sweden.

Yes - this is correct. Basically every January/February an international team made up of exclusively Scandinavian-based players is sent to places such as the Middle East or, most recently, Ecuador to play a few friendly matches. However and even when Sweden plays friendlies with "a full squad" - they're not up to much. This is because Sweden tries to experiment in their friendly matches - with varying degrees of success. When it comes to competitive matches, there is absolutely no experimenting. It's always a cautious 4-4-2 formation, one central midfielder sitting in front of the back four, and an attacking play based on countering. You'll never see a Sweden side force the pace of a game - simply because they're not capable of doing so. And anytime they try to do so, see friendly matches, they are a very ordinary side.

[youngirish]

Also, you say this but the Czechs are a much different side since the World Cup and even now I'd have them as a better side than you. The side that beat USA 3-0 in the World Cup was in much better form and Jan Koller was fully fit, a key player for them.
The Czechs were not particularly brilliant in the World Cup in fairness either. They lost their other two games so I wouldn't consider them any different than the team we played a few months later and should really have beaten. I agree they are better than us but only slightly.

The only player they really miss would be Nedved though he's getting on a bit anyway.

The USA are a pretty average to poor team IMO. I'd still say we should beat them comfortably though under Stan any result is possible. They have a terrible record in the World Cup also bar 2002 when they did well in any easy group (the easiest in the tournament, only Portugal were much cop though they did beat them).

[Cymro]

I think Koller got injured in that game against the USA actually, which shows how important he is to them.

[kingdom hoop]

Well they finished 32 out of 32 teams in WC2002 having gone into the tourney as 'dark horses'.

:confused: The US got to the quarter-finals in 2002

[kingdom hoop]

They have a terrible record in the World Cup also bar 2002 when they did well in any easy group (the easiest in the tournament, only Portugal were much cop though they did beat them).

South Korea were in that group as well by the way, knocking out the so-called Golden Generation of Portuguese football

Last years WC handed them a very tough group - Czechs, Italy and Ghana - where they probably under-performed though did manage a tempestuous draw against ultimate victors Italy.

I wouldn't say they've a terrible record in the WC, just a bit hit and miss, which is never a good thing in a WC:p

[youngirish]

South Korea were in that group as well by the way, knocking out the so-called Golden Generation of Portuguese football

Yeah it was lucky they had the ref and the two linesmen playing for them all through the tournament. The poorest team to ever reach the semi finals of a World Cup in living memory. I thought they were rubbish. The didn't look too hot without home advantage and the ref last time around.

[carloz]

Yeah it was lucky they had the ref and the two linesmen playing for them all through the tournament. The poorest team to ever reach the semi finals of a World Cup in living memory. .

They were very poor alright and seemed to get every bad referee's decision their way...having said that Turkey also got to that semi final, and then failed to qulaify for the nest major championship, Croatia got to the semi in France 98, and with a little help from us, failed to qualify for the next majopr tournament, and in USA 94 a rather average Bulgaria side made it to the semi and done very little afterwards. An average team always seems to make it to the semi's somehow. If one thinks back in Japan and Korea in 2002, had we won our group, we would have had quite an easy route to the final

[Qwerty]

:confused: The US got to the quarter-finals in 2002

Sorry I meant '98, the years whizz by.

[danonion]

I think Koller got injured in that game against the USA actually, which shows how important he is to them.

Pity we can't give him the Stephen Hunt treatment and put him out of commisionh

[Metrostars]

The USA are somewhere in between how well they did in 2002 and how badly they fared in 2006. In 2002, they got some lucky breaks e.g. S Korea beating Portugal with a late goal, shocking Portugal in their initial game and meeting the one side they knew they could beat in the second round, Mexico. In 2006, they were unlucky e.g. Reyna hitting the post just after Koller scored, questionable sending off against Italy and a dodgy penalty given against them against Ghana.

I watch a lot of both teams and I'd say USA and Ireland are comparable in terms of standard. The US do have an easier qualification route to the World Cup but they can only beat the teams put in front of them which they always do. And we do not.

[SuperDave]

[QUOTE=Metrostars;672463]"Jacques Santini...will be greeted in every dugout of the country by "one-nil, one-nil" - Clive Tyldsley, 89th minute of France-England June 13, 2004.
"Ooooohhhh Nooooooo" Bobby Robson 91st minute.
QUOTE]

I remember I was working that day in a pub. Before the game, I had a break and was about to go down to the bookies to place a bet on a 28-1 shot with the £10 (northerner) I had in my pocket, but I was called away and had to work. One of the bouncers went down and placed the same bet I was going to place, but I never got down. Three-ish hours later he came back with his money, the best part of £300. What happened? England were up at half time, and lost the game. My bet was England half time/France full time. I'm still bitter. Nick Barmby let me down for a fortune on Saturday too.

[Rasher]

The Republic of Ireland have slipped six places in the new FIFA world rankings to 38th after the recent friendly draws against Bolivia and Ecuador.

Scotland are down nine to 23rd while England remain eighth following recent results.

After making a strong start to their Euro 2008 qualifying Group B campaign the Scots rose as high as 14th in the governing body's ratings.

But despite a 2-0 away win against the Faroe Islands last week, Alex McLeish's side have been overtaken by the likes of Serbia, Ghana, Ivory Coast and the USA.

England held their position after drawing at home to Brazil in a friendly and winning their latest qualifier in Estonia last week.

Northern Ireland, who recently appointed Nigel Worthington as Lawrie Sanchez's successor, moved up four to 29th despite not having played since March.

Wales remain 75th after a friendly draw with New Zealand and the Euro 2008 stalemate against Czech Republic in Cardiff.

World champions Italy remain top while France have overtaken Brazil to go second. Argentina are down to fifth, now behind Germany who now occupy their highest position in four years

[Sligo Hornet]

Despite "reasonable" performances in our friendlies in USA, we have slipped down the rankings (again!:mad:) to 38th!!

[Paddy Garcia]

Quality of the opposition, Bolivia are around the 97 mark. Understandably no credit for a draw there.

[Schumi]

Who cares? These world rankings are meaningless, they don't affect entry into competitions or seedings for anything. Our position in our qualifying group is the only statistic that matters.

[Cymro]

Armenia moved up 48 places last month, after winning 1-0 against Poland.

Now that's a decent result but not worth a 48 place jump surely?

These rankings are even more meaningless than the old system, and I'm not just saying that because we're 75th.

[youngirish]

Armenia moved up 48 places last month, after winning 1-0 against Poland.

Now that's a decent result but not worth a 48 place jump surely?

These rankings are even more meaningless than the old system, and I'm not just saying that because we're 75th.

They are meaningless rubbish. They are updated far too regularly and the fact that they now take friendly results into account makes them all the more ridiculous. No doubt EalingGreen is wetting himself since the North have jumped above us in the rankings even though they haven't played since the last update and we put out our C team against Ecuador and Bolivia in a pointless trip to the States.

[Bald Student]

But how can they be meaningless? Our drop to 24th place was a major factor in the old manager loosing his job! Unless..........

[youngirish]

But how can they be meaningless? Our drop to 24th place was a major factor in the old manager loosing his job! Unless..........

I think that main reason he lost his job was our poor finishes in the two qualifying campaigns he overseen. The rankings would have mattered nowt if we'd qualified for anything in his time in charge and he'd still have his job.

[eirebhoy]

I think they're fairly accurate anyway and the new system is decent. People have to remember that every month we're also losing points from results 12, 24, 32 and 48 months ago. It's all averaged.

Armenia moved up so much by beating Poland because that result improves their average so much. Last month they had 180 points. That's the average of all their points using the system. They get 1638 points for beating Poland. That's no more than Italy would get for beating Poland but it's not going to do much to Italys average obviously.

On top of that Armenia haven't even got a draw in June in the last 4 years so they won't lose any points. What that means is, say we beat Brazil last June. The points for that match would be halved because the match will then be outside the 12 month period. We're losing points for wins against Georgia, Albania, Jamaica, Holland, Faroes and a draw against Israel. No defeats in June in the last 4 years.

It's hard to explain. Read the guardian link:
http://football.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1871529,00.html

They are still meaningless though. :D

[Cymro]

If they got 1638 points for beating Poland surely they'd be top of the rankings? ;)

The new system sees too many sharp changes either way. Armenia haven't suddenly become a team 48 places better after beating Poland, respectable result though it may have been.

[as_i_say]

havent seen EG around these parts lately-probably fears the worst for nordies after sanxhez departure. if a team as low as armenia beats a team as high as the polskis a huge jump in rankings is only fair.

San marino probably would have jumped 100 places if they got a draw with us

[RogerMilla]

EG must be on his hols or his mum pulled the plug on the internet !

[OneRedArmy]

I think they're fairly accurate anyway and the new system is decent. People have to remember that every month we're also losing points from results 12, 24, 32 and 48 months ago. It's all averaged.

Armenia moved up so much by beating Poland because that result improves their average so much. Last month they had 180 points. That's the average of all their points using the system. They get 1638 points for beating Poland. That's no more than Italy would get for beating Poland but it's not going to do much to Italys average obviously.

On top of that Armenia haven't even got a draw in June in the last 4 years so they won't lose any points. What that means is, say we beat Brazil last June. The points for that match would be halved because the match will then be outside the 12 month period. We're losing points for wins against Georgia, Albania, Jamaica, Holland, Faroes and a draw against Israel. No defeats in June in the last 4 years.

It's hard to explain. Read the guardian link:
http://football.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1871529,00.html

They are still meaningless though. :DYou've said the system is decent, and then proceeded not to back up why its decent, but to explain how it works.

Its fairly clear how it works, but it doesn't make it any more relevant and accurate (mainly for the reasons outlined in the posts above, principly the fact that friendlies aren't worth toffee anymore).

[Steve Bruce]

I would wind up a few different members about the rankings, but really they should be taken with a pinch of salt.

The rankings are based on results over the past 4 years. So if you had good results 4 years ago but bad results recently, then you'll be losing points from before and replacing them with none now. So that is why rankings fluctuate greatly.

Before it was over 7 or 8 years, which in my opinion was very silly as there could be a breed of 11 superstars replacing a breed of 11 wooden ones.(unlikely but you know my point)

These rankings are only a guideline and to me a bit of fun to use as banter.(which some people take very seriously and decide to be insulting)

People know in there heads which teams are the best in the world.

IMO Brazil is still the best team in the world, even if the rankings don't reflect that.

[OneRedArmy]

IMO Brazil is still the best team in the world, even if the rankings don't reflect that.They actually have a tournament to decide the best team in the world and from memory Brazil aren't the champions.

[youngirish]

They actually have a tournament to decide the best team in the world and from memory Brazil aren't the champions.

They are nowhere near the best at the moment. I wouldn't even have them in third. They are sh*te defensively.

[Steve Bruce]

They actually have a tournament to decide the best team in the world and from memory Brazil aren't the champions.

Greece won the European championships, does that make them the best in Europe? And if that is the case how can Greece be the Best in Europe and Italy be the best in the World yet not the best in Europe?

That doesn't make any sense at all.

And if England/Germany/France etc win the European Championships next year, does that mean Italy are best team in the world bar Europe?

A very flawed arguement.

[Steve Bruce]

They are nowhere near the best at the moment. I wouldn't even have them in third. They are sh*te defensively.

It's all opinions.

I wouldn't have Germany being in the top 5. But they are.

[RogerMilla]

italy are far better than brazil , steve bruce , brazil should be the best with their personnel but they are nowhere near. to my mind they peaked in that confed cup tournament

[eirebhoy]

If they got 1638 points for beating Poland surely they'd be top of the rankings? ;)
No. It's all averages. I'm crap at explaining things like this so just read the guardian link. :)


You've said the system is decent, and then proceeded not to back up why its decent, but to explain how it works.

And that's all I tried to do. :D I think the rankings are accurate.

[pineapple stu]

I think that main reason he lost his job was our poor finishes in the two qualifying campaigns he overseen. The rankings would have mattered nowt if we'd qualified for anything in his time in charge and he'd still have his job.
The rankings were the main reason as quoted by John Delaney at the time.

[EalingGreen]

havent seen EG around these parts lately-probably fears the worst for nordies after sanxhez departure.


Aw shucks. After slagging me off when I was here, now you're missing me when I've hardly gone....:o

To be honest, we all know these rankings are pretty cack, but after so long when NI was a laughing stock, I hardly think anyone can really blame us if we take a bit of pride, even in something so inconsequential.

As it happens, I feel we could have another couple of months of basking in the warm, glowing ranks of the Top Thirty, since we've still got the final six months of dross under McIlroy to drop off our 4 year record (McIlroy resigned in Nov/Dec? 2003), plus our next game is in August, at home to Liechtenstein.

As for our future prospects where it really counts (on the pitch), I can't quite make up my mind about Nigel. Obviously losing Sanchez cannot be a good thing. But it might not necessarily be a bad thing, either. I say that because for all that Sanchez was respected by his players, that's not the same as saying he was liked by them, and it might just be that hearing a new voice after 3 1/2 years might refresh them. Plus Nigel should have one or two players with whom Lawrie fell out (notably George McCartney) available to him.

And if Nigel's managerial record is hardly Mourinho-like either, it's not that bad either; in fact, you could say it looks better than Lawrie's did when he took over. I just hope he's got the sense not to change too much, but treat the remaining six games as a series of "one-offs" and trust in the confidence the players ought to have gained over the last couple of years.

Thereafter, we'll just have to take what comes. Personally, I think we'll finish third, behind Sweden by 5 or 6 points, and behind Spain by a point or two, with Denmark in fourth a point or two behind us. And if in doing so, we can just squeeze into the next Seeding Pot for the WC2010 Draw, then this will have been an almighty four years since the ignominy of Sammy McIlroy, not scoring for an eternity, and plunging down the Rankings to 124 in the world!

Onwards and Upwards! :cool:

[Not Brazil]

Hope Liechtenstein wallop you.

I thought you were one of the guys who wanted to see a "united" Ireland team?

I must have been mistaken.:confused:

[co. down green]

For god's sake, don't feed them !!

[youngirish]

I thought you were one of the guys who wanted to see a "united" Ireland team?

I must have been mistaken.:confused:

I don't. Dunno how the others feel.

[Torn-Ado]

I don't. Dunno how the others feel.

Same as that.

F*ck Irelands Call

[bwagner]

EG what seeds will you guys be for the world cup do you reckon?

[youngirish]

This is the Ireland forum. Go to another site if you want to discuss another team.

Surprising as it may seem on ourweecountry.com they spend most of their time discussing our team and not theirs.

[bwagner]

Whats up u bum bum tpaddy ...sure we have nothing else to talk about at the moment anyway

[EalingGreen]

EG what seeds will you guys be for the world cup do you reckon?

At the moment we're 29th of 52 European teams, which would likely leave us 5th seeds (we were seeded 6th for the present Euro Qualifiers :().

That said, if we can grind out decent results in the second half of our Euro 2008 Qualifiers and a couple of teams ahead of us underperform, depending on how the World Cup Groups are divided (how many pots etc), we might just sneak into the 4th Seeds. If so, I imagine we'd be in the company of ROI?

I would guess that jumping two Seeds in the course of one campaign is pretty unusual. But if we don't make it this time, seeing as our WCQ2006 results were not especially good (the Sanchez factor hadn't taken full effect), once we get into WCQ2010 games and the WCQ2006 results drop off, it may not take exceptional results to go alongside our Euro2008 results for us to clinch 4th seeding?

[peterc1992]

i dont believe it!i knoew it doesnt matter but the scots are 14th,thats crazy,they are ****!

[tetsujin1979]

i dont believe it!i knoew it doesnt matter but the scots are 14th,thats crazy,they are ****!
They're so **** they've only lost 2 qualifiers, one of which was against the World Champions, they've beaten the World Cup runners up, won every other game they're played since September and currently sit third in their group.
Man, I wish we were that ****!!

[youngirish]

Man, I wish we were that ****!!
In fairness they are pretty sh*t. They've grinded out a few decent results but they won't finish any higher than fourth in that group whereby any decent team would be dissappointed with anything below third.

While France and Italy are top teams, Ukraine are pretty rubbish (they were terrible in the world cup where having a combination of an easy draw and a lot of luck they somehow managed to get to the Quarter Finals where the Italians p*ssed all over them without Ukraine being impressive in any of their previous games).

[Lionel Ritchie]

In fairness they are pretty sh*t. They've grinded out a few decent results but they won't finish any higher than fourth in that group whereby any decent team would be dissappointed with anything below third.

While France and Italy are top teams, Ukraine are pretty rubbish (they were terrible in the world cup where having a combination of an easy draw and a lot of luck they somehow managed to get to the Quarter Finals where the Italians p*ssed all over them without Ukraine being impressive in any of their previous games).

Solvent abuse can kill instantly.

There's no way I'd swap our group for the one Scotland are in and have a better chance of emerging from than we have.

"Grinded out a few decent results"? They actually beat France when all we could manage in the last campaign was a "moral victory" i.e. no victory at all but we'll take the point sure -and a whingey defeat at home against them.

In this campaign -the defeat by Italy which had them disconsolate would've been passed off as "part of a learning curve" by some in and around our team who'd have reminded us we're "building for 2010".

Some of their team would get into ours on crutches and I only wish we'd fired Stan and taken McLeish when he was available.

[Cymro]

In fairness they are pretty sh*t. They've grinded out a few decent results but they won't finish any higher than fourth in that group whereby any decent team would be dissappointed with anything below third.

While France and Italy are top teams, Ukraine are pretty rubbish (they were terrible in the world cup where having a combination of an easy draw and a lot of luck they somehow managed to get to the Quarter Finals where the Italians p*ssed all over them without Ukraine being impressive in any of their previous games).

Scotland would beat Ireland at the moment. That's pretty much all I have to say in response to that.

And as for Ukraine being rubbish if they were in our group they'd likely be leading it on the basis of the performances of those teams in the group.

[Torn-Ado]

There's no way I'd swap our group for the one Scotland are in and have a better chance of emerging from than we have.



TBH I think we have a better chance of qualifying than the sweaty socks.

[youngirish]

You all assume I think Ireland are good just because Scotland are sh*te. Over 2 legs they might beat us but it would be close. Flick a coin.

We have far better players though with a fully fit team. Darren Fletcher and Barry Ferguson? Give me strength. Kenny Miller and Kris Boyd? Pure dung. Wouldn't get a game in the Premiership.

I'd say both teams are sh*te but they are punching above their weight at the moment while we are suffering from years of mismanagement. Overtime things will level off. We have consistently been better than them over the years and people still continue to moan even when we still have a very good chance of qualifying (which Scotland don't) while the Scots look content to finish in 4th place in their group which let's face it we wouldn't be.



Some of their team would get into ours on crutches and I only wish we'd fired Stan and taken McLeish when he was available.
That statement alone is the sign of a man on too much medication. Name their players who would walk into our team? Their best player Shaun Maloney is an average Premiership player at best no better than Stephen Reid for example. Duff(on form or off), Given, Keane, Finnan, Dunne, Doyle, S Reid and A Reid would all walk into their team if they were Scottish. Any statement otherwise is nonsense. Even McGeady would walk into their team and he doesn't get a lookin for us (thank God as he's poor like the majority of SPL players). Stop jumping on the bandwagon because they had one or two good results. They will finish fourth in that group.

[NeilMcD]

Once again you mix a bit of fact and good sense with OTT comments. Scotland are not happy with fourth. I know lots of Tartan Army guys who will be ****ed off if they dont qualify. You seem to think football is about names on a team sheet. Football is about work ethic and teams gelling as well as ability. To win a World Cup you need all of that plus luck but to qualify you dont.

[youngirish]

Once again you mix a bit of fact and good sense with OTT comments. Scotland are not happy with fourth. I know lots of Tartan Army guys who will be ****ed off if they dont qualify. You seem to think football is about names on a team sheet. Football is about work ethic and teams gelling as well as ability. To win a World Cup you need all of that plus luck but to qualify you dont.

Scotland are sh*t. They won't finish higher than 4th. As for Lionel claiming they have a better chance of qualifying than us the poor chap is deluded and anyone that thinks otherwise is likeminded. If he thinks they have a better chance to qualify he should stick a few quid down in labrokes. They are 8/1 to our 3/1.

For the record neither will qualify IMO but we have a far better chance than them (they have none).

As for Cymro claiming Ukraine would top our group he either:
a. Has never seen them play
b. Knows none of their players
c. Has never seen Germany play
d. Has never seen the Czechs play

The Germans are a far better team than the Ukraine (and possibly than France and Italy at present) while the Czechs are slightly better.